CSNbbs
To all of you “Dancers”- - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: CAAbbs (/forum-676.html)
+---- Forum: CAA Conference Talk (/forum-677.html)
+----- Forum: William & Mary (/forum-691.html)
+----- Thread: To all of you “Dancers”- (/thread-875533.html)

Pages: 1 2


To all of you “Dancers”- - nj alum - 05-01-2019 01:15 PM

It’s one thing to “tinker” to get to the Dance.

It’s a whole nother ball game to clean house (intentionally or not), and start anew, to get to the Dance.

Our school is perilously close to being in the latter situation rather than the former.

Did you sign on for this when you supported the Dance “card” as being the reason to fire Shaver?

This was a high wire act from the start, and the MBB program has lost it’s balance, and is about to fall.


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - nj alum - 05-02-2019 05:41 AM

Where have all the “Dancers” gone?


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - wmmii - 05-02-2019 08:57 AM

If Chase and LJ stay, then we have a solid chance to make the Dance next year if Knight returns plus Vliet, Harvey, Blair, Williams, Lowe, and Scott. If we lose both, then road needs a huge influx of grad transfers. If I were Coach Dane, then I would focus on grad transfers for 2019 and a solid 2020 class.


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - TribePride91 - 05-06-2019 09:14 AM

Solid chance? I guess. But, not as solid as the chance if we had the same staff as in February. Dane and the brand new staff are behind due to no fault of their own. Finding grad transfers to fill out this year's team might be harder than it appears. But, it makes total sense to focus hard on 2020. My concern is that I was very excited about Granger, Humphrey, and Smith for 2020. I hope they really want to come to W&M, rather than come to W&M and play for Coach Shaver and Coach Holmes in that system. I am also sure that the former players helped sell the school and the program in the recent past. Do we still have that? Not sure. But, Dane might be able to build it over time in his own way if allowed time to do it. If Nathan moves on, 2019 will be very lean at this point. Likely as much lost as any mid-major team in the country.


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - Tribe32 - 05-06-2019 09:41 AM

Losing Pierce is a killer. He would have been first team preseason CAA. Losing Milon isn't as big of a deal given his role as a sharp shooter. When you lose them, Owens, and Audige, you've lost a ton.


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - LION KING - 05-06-2019 10:09 AM

(05-06-2019 09:41 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Losing Pierce is a killer. He would have been first team preseason CAA. Losing Milon isn't as big of a deal given his role as a sharp shooter. When you lose them, Owens, and Audige, you've lost a ton.

W & M will be fine with or without these players.

Did the NBA fold when Michael Jordan or Larry Bird left ? No so forget about those who leave and focus on those who stay.


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - Zorch - 05-06-2019 10:18 AM

(05-06-2019 10:09 AM)LION KING Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 09:41 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Losing Pierce is a killer. He would have been first team preseason CAA. Losing Milon isn't as big of a deal given his role as a sharp shooter. When you lose them, Owens, and Audige, you've lost a ton.

W & M will be fine with or without these players.

Did the NBA fold when Michael Jordan or Larry Bird left ? No so forget about those who leave and focus on those who stay.

Maybe the NBA didn't fold when Jordan or Bird left .....but how well did the Bulls and Celtics do when they left? (I don't actually remember. Maybe they did great. But the point is that you need to look at the team, not the league).


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - Tribfan - 05-06-2019 10:23 AM

(05-06-2019 10:18 AM)Zorch Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 10:09 AM)LION KING Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 09:41 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Losing Pierce is a killer. He would have been first team preseason CAA. Losing Milon isn't as big of a deal given his role as a sharp shooter. When you lose them, Owens, and Audige, you've lost a ton.

W & M will be fine with or without these players.

Did the NBA fold when Michael Jordan or Larry Bird left ? No so forget about those who leave and focus on those who stay.

Maybe the NBA didn't fold when Jordan or Bird left .....but how well did the Bulls and Celtics do when they left? (I don't actually remember. Maybe they did great. But the point is that you need to look at the team, not the league).

W&M has never been "fine" at MBB without Tony Shaver, Jonathan Holmes and all their recruits. That is a fact. So I beg to differ we will be fine with or without these players, that remains to be seen, and rests now on the shoulders of Coach Fischer.


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - WMInTheBurg - 05-06-2019 05:38 PM

(05-06-2019 10:23 AM)Tribfan Wrote:  W&M has never been "fine" at MBB without Tony Shaver, Jonathan Holmes and all their recruits. That is a fact. So I beg to differ we will be fine with or without these players, that remains to be seen, and rests now on the shoulders of Coach Fischer.

Coach Parkhill & Coach Woollum would beg to differ with that analysis.


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - tribeinexile - 05-06-2019 05:59 PM

W&M was 69-94 under Woollum.
-
Parkhill was an exceptional coach hired away to a big time school in his home state. You can still find articles on Penn State basketball lamenting his premature retirement from there. (And I can remember being excited when we beat Roanoke College at home on a last second Kenny Bowen (?) shot in 78-79 because it meant we "were going to be OK" so even Parkhill had his struggles here.)

If we could get past the snark and totally unnecessary back-biting on this board I think we could see there are two camps: those who feel W&M's natural level of basketball success is high, let's say winning the CAA every 3-4 years and those who think the Barry Parkhill, Chuck Swenson, Charlie Woollum, Rick Boyages track record is very real probability for the future.

Count me among those who have to come back to this board frequently to see what is going - and hate what this board has become.

And who knows, maybe this post is contributing to that.

Sorry.


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - Touchdown Green and Gold - 05-06-2019 06:17 PM

(05-06-2019 05:38 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 10:23 AM)Tribfan Wrote:  W&M has never been "fine" at MBB without Tony Shaver, Jonathan Holmes and all their recruits. That is a fact. So I beg to differ we will be fine with or without these players, that remains to be seen, and rests now on the shoulders of Coach Fischer.

Coach Parkhill & Coach Woollum would beg to differ with that analysis.

Woollum coached at W&M for 6 years with one winning season (1-6 in CAA conference tournament games) and we all remember how that ended.


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - Tribe32 - 05-06-2019 06:24 PM

Basketball under Bruce Parkhill was more competitive than anything we've seen recently. We played a much harder schedule and sold out the Hall. Also, there were only 32 teams in the NCAA tournament, no shot clock, no three point shots, and no grad transfers. If you ever have a chance, go look up who we played during his tenure. It was a very, very different time both in terms of hoops where almost every player played four years. Think about how good teams like Duke and UNC were back then. We beat one of them. That type of college basketball in terms of talent will never return.


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - WMInTheBurg - 05-06-2019 07:49 PM

(05-06-2019 06:17 PM)Touchdown Green and Gold Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 05:38 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 10:23 AM)Tribfan Wrote:  W&M has never been "fine" at MBB without Tony Shaver, Jonathan Holmes and all their recruits. That is a fact. So I beg to differ we will be fine with or without these players, that remains to be seen, and rests now on the shoulders of Coach Fischer.

Coach Parkhill & Coach Woollum would beg to differ with that analysis.

Woollum coached at W&M for 6 years with one winning season (1-6 in CAA conference tournament games) and we all remember how that ended.

(05-06-2019 05:59 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  W&M was 69-94 under Woollum.

If you're going to discount the start of Shaver's tenure because of Boyages, I think it's fair to discount the start of Woollum's tenure due to Swenson. There are a lot of similarities in the first 6 years for each of them. You could easily make the case that Woollum's last season might have been a blip like Marcus Thornton's 2nd season was for Shaver. Except that Charlie already had a lot more miles on the sideline at that point than Shaver and elected to retire.


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - wmmii - 05-06-2019 07:58 PM

(05-06-2019 09:41 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Losing Pierce is a killer. He would have been first team preseason CAA. Losing Milon isn't as big of a deal given his role as a sharp shooter. When you lose them, Owens, and Audige, you've lost a ton.

Pierce and Prewitt both are similar. Great players but did not create always the best team chemistry.

Agree with you if we lose Audige and Owens we are in deep trouble until Dane signs some players.

I think Nate's decision will factor into what Audige and Owens do.


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - Touchdown Green and Gold - 05-06-2019 08:13 PM

(05-06-2019 07:49 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 06:17 PM)Touchdown Green and Gold Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 05:38 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 10:23 AM)Tribfan Wrote:  W&M has never been "fine" at MBB without Tony Shaver, Jonathan Holmes and all their recruits. That is a fact. So I beg to differ we will be fine with or without these players, that remains to be seen, and rests now on the shoulders of Coach Fischer.

Coach Parkhill & Coach Woollum would beg to differ with that analysis.

Woollum coached at W&M for 6 years with one winning season (1-6 in CAA conference tournament games) and we all remember how that ended.

(05-06-2019 05:59 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  W&M was 69-94 under Woollum.

If you're going to discount the start of Shaver's tenure because of Boyages, I think it's fair to discount the start of Woollum's tenure due to Swenson. There are a lot of similarities in the first 6 years for each of them. You could easily make the case that Woollum's last season might have been a blip like Marcus Thornton's 2nd season was for Shaver. Except that Charlie already had a lot more miles on the sideline at that point than Shaver and elected to retire.

I have never in any of my posts discounted Shaver’s early years. Shaver’s 16 year record in caa conference tournaments record (14-16 ..4 finals). Woollum’s (1-6..only 1 first round win). No comparison


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - Old tribe - 05-06-2019 10:57 PM

(05-06-2019 08:13 PM)Touchdown Green and Gold Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 07:49 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 06:17 PM)Touchdown Green and Gold Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 05:38 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 10:23 AM)Tribfan Wrote:  W&M has never been "fine" at MBB without Tony Shaver, Jonathan Holmes and all their recruits. That is a fact. So I beg to differ we will be fine with or without these players, that remains to be seen, and rests now on the shoulders of Coach Fischer.

Coach Parkhill & Coach Woollum would beg to differ with that analysis.

Woollum coached at W&M for 6 years with one winning season (1-6 in CAA conference tournament games) and we all remember how that ended.

(05-06-2019 05:59 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  W&M was 69-94 under Woollum.

If you're going to discount the start of Shaver's tenure because of Boyages, I think it's fair to discount the start of Woollum's tenure due to Swenson. There are a lot of similarities in the first 6 years for each of them. You could easily make the case that Woollum's last season might have been a blip like Marcus Thornton's 2nd season was for Shaver. Except that Charlie already had a lot more miles on the sideline at that point than Shaver and elected to retire.

I have never in any of my posts discounted Shaver’s early years. Shaver’s 16 year record in caa conference tournaments record (14-16 ..4 finals). Woollum’s (1-6..only 1 first round win). No comparison

Records in a single elimination post season tournament aren't a great test for coaching success. What was Shaver's record in the CAA tournament his first 6 years? It might have been slightly better than Woollum's. Woollum also had some very good players. Minus transfers and injuries he would have had a very good run in just his 6 years. I think he definitely would have had a winning record in those 6 years.


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - WMInTheBurg - 05-07-2019 12:29 AM

(05-06-2019 08:13 PM)Touchdown Green and Gold Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 07:49 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 06:17 PM)Touchdown Green and Gold Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 05:38 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 10:23 AM)Tribfan Wrote:  W&M has never been "fine" at MBB without Tony Shaver, Jonathan Holmes and all their recruits. That is a fact. So I beg to differ we will be fine with or without these players, that remains to be seen, and rests now on the shoulders of Coach Fischer.

Coach Parkhill & Coach Woollum would beg to differ with that analysis.

Woollum coached at W&M for 6 years with one winning season (1-6 in CAA conference tournament games) and we all remember how that ended.

(05-06-2019 05:59 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  W&M was 69-94 under Woollum.

If you're going to discount the start of Shaver's tenure because of Boyages, I think it's fair to discount the start of Woollum's tenure due to Swenson. There are a lot of similarities in the first 6 years for each of them. You could easily make the case that Woollum's last season might have been a blip like Marcus Thornton's 2nd season was for Shaver. Except that Charlie already had a lot more miles on the sideline at that point than Shaver and elected to retire.

I have never in any of my posts discounted Shaver’s early years. Shaver’s 16 year record in caa conference tournaments record (14-16 ..4 finals). Woollum’s (1-6..only 1 first round win). No comparison

I'm not targeting you, just defending Woollum. Shaver's 1st 6 seasons were 65-113, although they included our first multi-win CAA tournament. IIRC correctly, in 96-97 we had our first CAA tournament win under Woollum.


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - Tribewins - 05-07-2019 01:31 AM

(05-06-2019 07:58 PM)wmmii Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 09:41 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Losing Pierce is a killer. He would have been first team preseason CAA. Losing Milon isn't as big of a deal given his role as a sharp shooter. When you lose them, Owens, and Audige, you've lost a ton.

Pierce and Prewitt both are similar. Great players but did not create always the best team chemistry.

Agree with you if we lose Audige and Owens we are in deep trouble until Dane signs some players.

I think Nate's decision will factor into what Audige and Owens do.


Prewitt was one dimensional, can’t hold a candle to Pierce in terms of worth to team, both in game and chemistry.


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - WMInTheBurg - 05-07-2019 06:57 AM

(05-07-2019 01:31 AM)Tribewins Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 07:58 PM)wmmii Wrote:  
(05-06-2019 09:41 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Losing Pierce is a killer. He would have been first team preseason CAA. Losing Milon isn't as big of a deal given his role as a sharp shooter. When you lose them, Owens, and Audige, you've lost a ton.

Pierce and Prewitt both are similar. Great players but did not create always the best team chemistry.

Agree with you if we lose Audige and Owens we are in deep trouble until Dane signs some players.

I think Nate's decision will factor into what Audige and Owens do.


Prewitt was one dimensional, can’t hold a candle to Pierce in terms of worth to team, both in game and chemistry.
You are underrating Prewitt significantly. He was a better off ball defender than Pierce and a good shot blocker and rebounder. He was also a much better one on one offensive player. That said, it's a Montana/Young kind of thing. You'd have to see what the rest of the team was to pick one over the other.


RE: To all of you “Dancers”- - Paulbintheburg - 05-07-2019 07:30 AM

Shaver had the Tribe in the CAA CCG within 4 years, no coach prior ever even sniffed the CCG.